Maxime de la Rocheterie on Marie-Antoinette

"She was not a guilty woman, neither was she a saint; she was an upright, charming woman, a little frivolous, somewhat impulsive, but always pure; she was a queen, at times ardent in her fancies for her favourites and thoughtless in her policy, but proud and full of energy; a thorough woman in her winsome ways and tenderness of heart, until she became a martyr."

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

A Note on Reviews

Unless otherwise noted, any books I review on this blog I have either purchased or borrowed from the library, and I do not receive any compensation (monetary or in-kind) for the reviews.

Welcome, Guests!

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

President
Trump
announced the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement
on Thursday, to the horror of green elites world-wide. If the decision
shows he is more mindful of American economic interests than they are,
the other virtue of pulling out is to expose the fraudulence of this
Potemkin village.

In a Rose Garden ceremony, Mr. Trump broke with
the 2015 agreement, starting the formal four-year withdrawal process:
“We’re getting out. And we will start to renegotiate and we’ll see if
there’s a better deal. If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine.”

This
nonchalance inspired a predictable political meltdown, with the
anticarbon lobby invoking death, planetary disaster and a permanent
historical stain. Billionaire Democratic donor
Tom Steyer
called it “a traitorous act of war against the American people,”
while
Barack Obama
accused his successor of joining “a small handful of nations that
reject the future,” whatever that means. Get ready for another march on
the White House.

But
amid the outrage, the aggrieved still haven’t gotten around to
resolving the central Paris contradiction, which is that it promises to
be Earth-saving but fails on its own terms. It is a pledge of phony
progress. The 195 signatory nations volunteered their own carbon
emission-reduction pledges, known as “intended nationally determined
contributions,” or INDCs. China and the other developing nations account
for 63% of annual global CO 2 emissions, and their share is
rising. They submitted INDCs that pledged to peak the carbon status quo
“around” 2030, and maybe later, or never, since Paris included no
enforcement mechanisms to prevent cheating.

Meanwhile, the developed OECD nations—responsible for 55% of world CO 2
as recently as 2000—made unrealistic assurances that even they knew
they could not achieve. As central-planning prone as the Obama
Administration was, it never identified a tax-and-regulation program
that came close to meeting its own emissions pledge of 26% to 28%
reductions from 2005 levels by 2025.
Paris is thus an exercise in moral and social signaling that is likely to exert little if any influence on atmospheric CO 2
, much less on global temperatures. The Paris target was to limit the
surface temperature increase to “well below” two degrees Celsius from
the pre-industrial level by 2100.

Researchers at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology’s Joint Program conclude that even if every INDC
is fulfilled to the letter, the temperature increase will be in the
range of 1.9–2.6 degrees Celsius by 2050, and 3.1–5.2 degrees Celsius by
2100. Such forecasts are highly uncertain, which is inherent
when scientists attempt to predict the future behavior of a system as
complex as global climate. The best form of climate-change insurance is a
large and growing economy so that future generations can afford to
adapt to whatever they may confront.

A more prosperous society a
century or more from now is a more important goal than asking the world
to accept a lower standard of living today in exchange for symbolic
benefits. Poorer nations in a world where 1.35 billion live without
electricity will never accept such a trade in any case, while Mr. Trump
is right to decline to lock in U.S. promises that make U.S. industries
less competitive.

The surest way to “reject the future” is to
burden the economy with new political controls today, because economic
growth underwrites technological progress and human ingenuity. These are
the major drivers of energy transitions that allow people to generate
more wealth with fewer resources. Energy intensity—the amount of energy
necessary to create a dollar of GDP—has plunged 58% in the U.S. since
1990, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Over
the same period, intensity declined merely 37% in OECD Europe, 20% in
Japan, 22% in Mexico and 7% in Korea. China dropped by 133%, but working
off a far more wasteful initial base. Superior efficiency helps explain
why U.S. carbon emissions fell by 145 million tons in 2016 compared to
2015, more than any other country. Russia was second, at minus 64
million tons. Over the past five years U.S. emissions have fallen by 270
million tons, while China—the No. 1 CO 2 emitter—added 1.1 billion tons.

All
of which make the claims that the U.S. is abdicating global leadership
so overwrought. Leadership is not defined as the U.S. endorsing whatever
other world leaders have already decided they want to do, and the U.S.
is providing a better model in any case. Private economies that can
innovate and provide cost-effective energy alternatives will always beat
meaningless international agreements. (Read more.)

No comments:

La Reine-Martyre

New Biography of the Queen

Marie-Antoinette's Daughter

In Kirkus Top 20 for 2014!

An Amazon Bestseller!

A Kindle Bestseller!

Listen to Tea at Trianon Radio

All about Marie-Antoinette!

Visit My Tumblr!

East of the Sun, West of the Moon

St. Teresa of Avila, pray for us!

"...Bud forth as the rose planted by the brooks of waters. Give ye a sweet odor as frankincense. Send forth flowers, as the lily...and bring forth leaves in grace, and praise with canticles, and bless the Lord in his works." —Ecclesiasticus 39:17-19

Join the Party on FB!

The Joy of Networking

My Friends

Disclaimer

The fact that a link is provided here in no way constitutes an endorsement of everything on the other end of the link.

Comments Policy

Comments are moderated. If a comment is not published, it may be due to a technical error. At any rate, do not take offense; it is nothing personal. Slanderous comments will not be published. Anonymity may be tolerated, but politeness is required.

I would like to respond to every comment but my schedule renders it impossible to do so. Please know that I appreciate those who take the time to share their thoughts.